Keep it Local- At Westminster.

Could it be that the saviour of the Union may come from an unlikely source: the principle of localism?

In a word, "no", but nevertheless, following on from Billy Bragg's recent interview, another voice calling for the setting up of more "local democracy"....

An argument I've made on here before is that the devolved parliaments have not improved the level of democracy seen in the various parts of the United Kingdom; they have merely added a further level of legislative bureaucracy and the political engagement with the system felt by the average citizen is exactly the same or maybe even worse than it was was pre the referendums in 1997. Would "localising" democracy even further improve either situation?

In short, decision-making is more trustworthy, more accountable and more tailored to the community if done locally

Is decision-making really that more trustworty at the local level?
I haven't got time to dig out the various links re local government corruption, but the Westminster Council housing and the Birmingham postal votes scandals come immediately to mind here- if anything, due to the laughably low interest people have in their local councils, it's perhaps even easier to engage in a bit of dodgy business at that level.

More accountable?
Why?
Westmister MPS also have to deliver for their constituencies and local communities, or they face exactly the same sanction next election, a big kick up the backside from the electorate.

More tailored to the local community?
Possibly......but again, the point is that the level of involvement people feel for politics at the very "localist" level is much less than they do for Westminster and even EU elections. The result is that old chestnut of the "democratic deficit" again, local government having more power, would not necessarily mean more people voting for their local representatives and thus influencing what goes on in their communities.

The answer to "saving the Union" and delivering a better political system for the electorate is a bigger concentration on the real parliament of the UK at Westminster, albeit with a bit of fine-tuning of the system which existed before the devolution disasters of the late 90s. For example, the use of the Grand Committee system recently suggested for England could quite easily be extended to not only the other three countries of the Union, but also the more identifiable regions of England.

Result? Less constitutional fog, more effective government, as well as maintaining the accountability and democratic involvement promised by the localised system. Best way of ensuring less snouts in the political trough and probably not only the best way of governing the UK, but also ensuring there remains a nation called the UK to govern.